The defendant's KRW 22,913,482 to the plaintiff and 5% per annum from January 24, 2017 to December 15, 2020.

1. Occurrence of and limitation on liability for damages;

(a) The following facts are recognized, either in dispute between the parties, or in combination with the purpose of the entire pleadings, on each entry or image set forth in Gap evidence 3 to 7 and Eul evidence 2 (including paper numbers):

1) C Trucks D around 15:50 on January 24, 2017 (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicles”).

) A Fcar driven by the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”) on the grounds as shown in Appendix 1, while driving a vehicle and driving a road near Yong-gun, Young-gun.

2) The instant accident was concealed (hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”).

(2) The Plaintiff suffered injury due to the instant accident, i.e., damage to chest beer, credit male, etc., which requires approximately 12 weeks of medical treatment. (2) The Defendant is an insurer that entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to the Defendant’s vehicle.

B. According to the above facts, the Plaintiff suffered injury due to the operation of the Defendant’s vehicle, and thus, the Defendant, the insurer, is liable to compensate for the Plaintiff’s damage due to the instant accident, barring any special circumstance.

C. Meanwhile, according to the above facts and evidence, the accident of this case is an accident in which the defendant's vehicle, who was driven at the rear side of the road along which the real line was installed, was committed by the defendant's vehicle driving ahead of the front line in order to overtake the plaintiff's vehicle in the front line, and was driving ahead of the rear line in order to commit a collision with the plaintiff's vehicle driving ahead of the front line. Thus, the plaintiff was negligent in driving over the center line without sufficiently examining the traffic situation of the rear line through the rear mirror, and the plaintiff's above mistake can be recognized as a cause for the occurrence of the accident of this case or the expansion of damage, and the scope of the defendant's liability is limited in consideration of this, but although both vehicles are at fault, there is a wide range of visibilitys around the center line than the front line, and it is easy to take into account the traffic situation of the rear line.